RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] - informal snap poll

["Tom Lynch" <tom.lynch@imp-inc.com>]

Hello,

I apologize for the spam.

I not able to find the remove sequence for this list - could someone please
help me.

Best wishes,
 
Tom Lynch
Director - Client Services
 
Interactive Media Partners, Inc.
12 S. Michigan Avenue
Chicago IL 60603
 
p - 312.357.1400
f - 312.357.1460
 
e - tom.lynch@imp-inc.com <mailto:tom.lynch@imp-inc.com>
w - www.imp-inc.com <http://www.imp-inc.com>
 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Greg Burton
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:26 AM
To: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] - informal snap poll


At 07:32 AM 12/29/00, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:

>I suggest we start with threshold questions. For example: Is the DNSO
>constituency structure representative of Internet stakeholder interests?

9. Are there important parts of the Internet Community that may need better
representation?
no - 0
maybe - 3
need better - 12
no response - 2

It seems clear that to this point, the overall position would agree with
your answer, and no one flatly disagrees. But I guess knowing that doesn't
get us anywhere, and it will be really worthwhile to continue arguing that
passionately in the face of general agreement.

Me, I'd be curious to know if people think that current members of the
constituencies are well represented. And, the answer is the respondents to
date don't think so. Only 2 respondents think that the members are
"generally" adequately represented, while 12 think that they are "sometimes
or rarely" adequately represented.

>My answer is no. There are stakeholders who are not yet included; namely,
>individual domain name registrants.

10. Should there be a constituency for individuals?
yes - 15
no -  1
no answer - 1

Surprise! There seems to be near-consensus on that. But wait - are there
any other groups that someone thinks aren't represented?

The Chartered TLDs, GOV/small governments, EDU/schools, endusers, small
businesses, and churches have all been mentioned so far in the poll.  To
me, this would indicate that simply creating a constituency for individuals
might solve the loudest and largest problem, but without a structural
change the problem will likely re-occur. Guess that's not worth knowing,
either.

>In addition, I think there should be a list of objective criteria applied
>to all constituencies that the DNSO may
>rely upon to determine whether the constituency is actually representative.

Objective criteria of representativeness? Representative is a subjective
term, and there is no empirical way of determining it, though there are
statistical methods for determining if a sample is representative
.
>This criteria should support the consensus-building goals of the DNSO,
which
>is to make policy recommendations to the BoD.

Representativeness and consensus-building are two different fish, and
confusing them won't help matters much.

Regards,
Greg
sidna@feedwriter.com